2015 (9) TMI 1449 - SC - Indian Laws

Guilty of murder - whether the courts below were right in invoking the last seen theory - conviction of the accused-appellants under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on each of them with a fine of ₹ 2,000/- with default clause and also two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹ 500/- with default clause respectively - Held that - In view of the time gap between Manoj left in the truck and the recovery of the body and also the place and circumstances in which the body was recovered, possibility of others intervening cannot be ruled out. In the absence of definite evidence that appellants and deceased were last seen together and when the time gap is long, it would be dangerous to come to the conclusion that the appellants are responsible for the murder of Manoj and are guilty of committing murder of Manoj. Where time gap is long it would be unsafe to base the conviction on the last seen theory ; it is safer to look for corroboration from other circumstances and evidence adduced by the prosecution. From the facts and evidence, we find no other corroborative piece of evidence corroborating the last seen theory. In case of circumstantial evidence, court has to examine the entire evidence in its entirety and ensure that the only inference that can be drawn from the evidence is the guilt of the accused. In the case at hand, neither the weapon of murder nor the money allegedly looted by the appellants or any other material was recovered from the possession of the appellants. There are many apparent lapses in the investigation and missing links (i) Non-recovery of stolen money; (ii) The weapon from which abrasions were caused; (iii) False case lodged by PW-2 alleging that he was being robbed by some other miscreants; (iv) Non-identification of the dead body and (v) Non-explanation as to how the deceased reached Maniya village and injuries on his internal organ (penis). Thus we find many loopholes in the case of the prosecution. For establishing the guilt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be firmly established and the chain of circumstances must be completed from the facts. The chain of circumstantial evidence cannot be said to be concluded in any manner sought to be urged by the prosecution. Normally, this Court will not interfere in exercise of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. But where material aspects have not been taken into consideration and where the findings of the Court are unsupportable from the evidence on record resulting in miscarriage of justice, this Court will certainly interfere. The last seen theory seems to have substantially weighed with the courts below and the High Court brushed aside many loopholes in the prosecution case. None of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the courts below can be said to be pointing only to the guilt of the appellants and no other inference. If more than one inferences can be drawn, then the accused must have the benefit of doubt. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained and the appeal ought to be allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of "last seen theory."
2. Establishment of motive for murder.
3. Adequacy and consistency of circumstantial evidence.
4. Burden of proof and explanation by the accused.
5. Lapses in the investigation process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of "last seen theory":
The prosecution's case heavily relied on the "last seen theory," asserting that the deceased was last seen alive with the accused. The court noted that this theory is an important link in the chain of circumstances but should not be the sole basis for conviction. The court emphasized that the time gap between the deceased being last seen and the recovery of the body was significant, making it unsafe to base the conviction solely on this theory. The court cited precedents to underscore that the "last seen theory" should be applied with caution and must be corroborated by other evidence.

2. Establishment of motive for murder:
The prosecution argued that the motive for the murder was to rob the deceased of Rs. 20,000. However, the court found serious doubts regarding this motive. The amount was not recovered from the accused, and there were inconsistencies in the testimonies regarding the robbery. The court highlighted that the absence of proof of motive demands careful scrutiny and deeper analysis of the evidence. The court also noted that the prosecution's claim that the driver Raj Kumar was robbed by other miscreants was found to be false, further weakening the motive argument.

3. Adequacy and consistency of circumstantial evidence:
The court reiterated the settled law that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and form a complete chain without gaps. The court found multiple lapses in the prosecution's case, including the non-recovery of the stolen money, the weapon used, and the false case lodged by PW-2. The court emphasized that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and did not conclusively point to the guilt of the accused. The court cited several precedents to underline the principles governing circumstantial evidence.

4. Burden of proof and explanation by the accused:
The court discussed the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which places the burden on the accused to explain facts within their special knowledge. However, the court noted that this does not shift the overall burden of proof from the prosecution. The court found that the accused's denial of the deceased having traveled in their truck, combined with the significant time gap and the circumstances of the body's recovery, made it unsafe to infer guilt solely based on the accused's failure to provide an explanation.

5. Lapses in the investigation process:
The court identified several investigative lapses, including the non-recovery of the stolen money, the weapon, and the false robbery case lodged by PW-2. The court also noted the non-identification of the dead body and the unexplained injuries on the deceased's internal organ. These lapses created significant doubts about the prosecution's case. The court emphasized that the chain of circumstantial evidence must be firmly established, which was not the case here.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the conviction of the appellants could not be sustained due to the incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence, significant investigative lapses, and the unsafe reliance on the "last seen theory." The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, and ordered the release of the appellants. The judgment underscores the importance of a thorough and consistent evidentiary chain in cases based on circumstantial evidence.